Abadi v. City of New York
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-08071
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Abadi v. City of New York, Judge Engelmayer granted the City’s motion to dismiss without prejudice because the challenged policies expired and Abadi lacked standing.
Aaron Abadi and the City of New York; the order also addresses any separate lawsuit Abadi may later file challenging a current city vaccination policy.
What happened
Abadi v. City of New York concerned Aaron Abadi’s challenge to New York City vaccination requirements for certain venues, City employees, and City contractors. Proceeding without a lawyer, Abadi alleged constitutional violations and false imprisonment and sought an injunction and other relief.
The court had previously dismissed his amended complaint with prejudice, but the Court of Appeals vacated that judgment. It ruled that his requests for an injunction and declarations were moot because the policies had ended, while his damages claims could not proceed because he lacked standing to bring them.
Judge Engelmayer granted the City’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, as directed by the Court of Appeals. The order states that Abadi was not barred by this dismissal from filing a new lawsuit challenging a current city vaccination policy, but any such challenge would have to be brought separately.
The detailed version
- Abadi v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-08071
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 5, 2023
Background
Aaron Abadi, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state common law. He sought a preliminary injunction and alleged that Emergency Executive Order 225 and Executive Order 78 violated his constitutional rights to equal protection and bodily integrity and subjected him to false imprisonment. Executive Order 225 required vaccination to enter certain indoor dining, entertainment, recreation, and fitness venues. Executive Order 78 required City and City-contractor employees to be vaccinated or take weekly COVID-19 tests.
The court denied Abadi’s request for a preliminary injunction on February 4, 2022. The City then moved to dismiss the amended complaint. While that motion was pending, the City argued that challenges to the Key to NYC program were moot because the vaccination requirements for restaurants, indoor gyms, and entertainment and recreation venues had been lifted. The court held the motion to dismiss while Abadi pursued an interlocutory appeal.
Prior appellate ruling
The Court of Appeals later summarily dismissed Abadi’s interlocutory appeal. This court then granted the City’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, relying substantially on the reasons given in its preliminary-injunction decision.
On May 8, 2023, the Court of Appeals ruled on Abadi’s later appeal. It agreed that the end of the COVID-19 restrictions made his requests for injunctive and declaratory relief moot. It also ruled that the end of the policies did not moot his requests for money damages; instead, Abadi lacked standing to bring those claims. Because mootness and standing deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals vacated the prior judgment and instructed this court to enter a dismissal without prejudice.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, consistent with the appellate mandate, granted the City’s motion to dismiss Abadi’s claims without prejudice. The order states that this dismissal did not prevent Abadi from pursuing a new action challenging current city vaccination policies. Any such challenge would concern a new policy and would have to be brought in a separate lawsuit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.